[arin-ppml] REQUEST FOR ARIN STAFF Was: Re: Policy Proposal 120: Protecting Number Resources

[Owen DeLong]

On Nov 9, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> On 09 Nov 2010 14:03, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 2010, at 11:50 AM, John Curran wrote:
>>> 2004:  29.00 /16s
>>> 2005:  14.61 /16s
>>> 2006:  14.01 /16s
>>> 2007:  30.50 /16s
>>> 2008:   8.45 /16s
>>> 2009:   8.37 /16s
>>> 2010*:  5.84 /16s   (*through Oct 31, 2010)
>>> 
>>> Total: 110.78 /16s
>> So in almost 7 years, we've reclaimed less than we gave Comcast last week.
>> 
>> Looks like a pretty small problem with minimal gain to me.
> 
> Keep in mind that's how much ARIN has reclaimed passively, i.e. based on
> reports of fraud, or due to non-payment of annual fees.
> 
I believe John said that was the amount reclaimed due to non-payment
of fees. I believe that's a fair representation of the abandonment rate.

> There seems to be a fairly strong consensus that the numbers would be
> significantly larger if ARIN were actively looking for abandoned or
> unjustified resources.
> 
I'm not sure where this consensus comes from. I don't think addresses
are getting abandoned any faster now. Fraud and underutilization
are a different matter, but, in terms of abandonment, I think the
numbers show that there's not as much as some seem to be claiming.

> Also, keep in mind that the goal is _not_ to reclaim a significant
> amount of space, e.g. to extend the lifetime of IPv4, so how the
> reclamation rate compares to the allocation/assignment rate is irrelevant.
> 
Depends on who you talk to.

Owen